PDA

View Full Version : DM Help I don't want to run the game I pitched!



whisperwind1
2015-01-22, 07:16 AM
I recently ended (rather abruptly) a campaign because a player dropped out, and desiring to have more than just three active players (the game is run online for good friends), I decided to start a new game entirely.

It worked, I now have five players, but the downside is i'm having second thoughts. I pitched several possible games, and the players settled on Warcraft. However the condition was that they didn't want to play the standard, Alliance/Horde campaign, and preferred to take a "Dragon Age Inquisition" tack of being independent problem solvers with political authority and resources. This sort of troubled me because first, I'm not confident that I can run the type of sandbox-style game they seem to want out of me (I can improvise, but generally I prefer a solid skeleton upon which to rest my plot). Secondly, I love the fluff of Warcraft very much (its my favorite fantasy setting), but hearing that the players want to play this specific campaign and dismiss the idea of being part of the Alliance or the Horde irked me. Basically they want no part of the factionalism inherent to the setting, and do not want to be in a subordinate position to anyone, forming a neutral bloc as it were. Essentially they only want to play a Warcraft game if it doesn't include one of the iconic dynamics of the setting (in my opinion), and honestly that's not how I wanted to run my campaign.

What I'm saying is that I don't want to run this game because it doesn't feel enough like Warcraft, but have already done alot of the prepwork with the players (chargen, setting down rules, etc...). Should I just tell my players that i've had a change of heart and that we'll think of something else? Heck if they want a Dragon Age style game i'd run Dragon Age for them, but I don't like the idea of ignoring what makes the chosen setting special just so the desired game can be played. Alternatively, should I try to convince them otherwise, that the setting as is can be fun and interesting (they already seemed pretty set on their preference though)?

Thanks for any advice!

Kiero
2015-01-22, 07:23 AM
A GM will not do their best work, creating the most fun for the players, by running something they are not totally enthusiastic about. You'll do no one any favours running this game when you're reluctant about it.

Talk to your players, explain your concerns, offer the Dragon Age alternative if it fits better with what they want to do, and you'd be happier running that. Or offer to start the pitch discussion again.

Kane0
2015-01-22, 07:28 AM
A GM will not do their best work, creating the most fun for the players, by running something they are not totally enthusiastic about. You'll do no one any favours running this game when you're reluctant about it.

Talk to your players, explain your concerns, offer the Dragon Age alternative if it fits better with what they want to do, and you'd be happier running that. Or offer to start the pitch discussion again.

Seconded. If the DM were to run something they don't really want to run, it becomes apparent pretty quickly and the game deteriorates at a similar rate.
The vast majority of players will understand that some things they are keen on you aren't, and if you sit down with them and talk it out you should be able to come up with an option more to everyones liking.

Ichneumon
2015-01-22, 07:31 AM
Some general advise: Roleplaying games are essentially just games. Games you usually played with friends to have fun. The main objective is usually just for everyone to have fun. If there are problems, if you really feel you can't or don't want to run a game like this, address it and talk with your fellow players, search for a way you can all have fun. Of course, you might have to compromise, that's part of life. But in general the best advise for any problem at the table is to simply address it and discuss it in a friendly and constructive matter with the people involved.

prufock
2015-01-22, 08:13 AM
While I agree with those below, I think it is possible to compromise: make adjustments, keep to the spirit of the game your players want, but incorporate elements of the setting that you enjoy. They may have to bend on some things, you may have to bend on some things, and you meet in the middle.

The sticky point I see is that they want to be both "neutral" and have "political authority." Since there are no neutral political authorities, this doesn't make much sense. While there might be a group of independent rebels, they shouldn't have authority in any official capacity, and they'll be subject to the laws of whichever territory they happen to be in at any given time. But they can act independent of the interests of the two sides. What would they want to accomplish in such a situation? What are their motives? You need a little more discussion to flesh this idea out.

Secondly, even if they are independents, they are going to get caught up in the basic conflict in some way. Eventually they might get stuck in a situation where they have to choose one side's POV over the other, even if it is only to further their own agenda.

I think this CAN work, but both sides have to be willing to give a little.

EDIT: I posted this with my last experience with Warcraft being WC 2. I've just looked up the setting on Wikipedia. It lists a bunch of independent races and groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Races_and_factions_of_Warcraft#Other_races), if that helps at all.

whisperwind1
2015-01-22, 08:15 AM
Thanks for the advice guys, I'll tell my group my concerns and offer the alternatives.

DireSickFish
2015-01-22, 09:05 AM
I agree that if you can't get behind the idea as a DM it needs to be changed or dropped.

That being said, you could still make it faction based and give them there neutrality. I'm not 100% on warcraft lore but arn't there plenty of non-hoard or alliance groups out there causing problems and vying for power? The PC's are one of these factions, like a goblin tribe or Nagas. So they have to compete -against- the Alliance and the Hoard. But they are such a small blip on the radar for two large factions that are fighting each other you barley register. So you can send levl appropriate resistance there way while also letting them fight mosnters and stuff.

The players might find the easiest route it to ally with the Hoard or Alliance. They may take the hard road and try expanding against both taking on all comers. Perhaps they get in bed with some Goblins and Gaints trying to make there own faction of "monsters".

But again if that doesn't seem like Warcraft to you step back from it.

Zejety
2015-01-22, 09:09 AM
I don't mean to pursuade you from moving away from something that you won't enjoy but just want to remind you of a couple Warcraft factions and work outside the two factions but can still be affected by it on a regular basis:

The Earthen Ring
If the novels are any indication, then the blue dragonflight consistently loses dangerous artifacts and then goes on quests to retrieve them.
Non-Bilgewater goblins may be a good basis for a mercenary campaign (no political power though).
If you play pre-Pandaria but after TFT, then the Kirin-Tor fit the bill quite nicely. Granted, AFAIK blood elves are the only Horde race within the Kirin Tor but I suppose they could still employ members from all factions in their missions.
In Warlords of Draenor, Kadgar commands an elite troop composed of races from both factions.

whisperwind1
2015-01-22, 11:10 AM
I don't mean to pursuade you from moving away from something that you won't enjoy but just want to remind you of a couple Warcraft factions and work outside the two factions but can still be affected by it on a regular basis:

The Earthen Ring
If the novels are any indication, then the blue dragonflight consistently loses dangerous artifacts and then go on quests to retrieve them.
Non-bilgewater goblins may be a good basis for mercenary campaign (no political power though).
If you play pre-Pandaria but after TFT, then the Kirin-Tor fit the bill quite nicely. Granted, AFAIK blood elves are the only Horde race within the Kirin Tor but I suppose they could still employ members from all factions in their missions.
In Warlords of Draenor, Kadgar commands an elite troop composed of races from both factions.


I totally understand this and this is what I pitched to my group and they were on board with it. My issue however, was that they seemed to want to move away from the Alliance and the Horde because they considered it to be limiting, shackling them to only a certain type of character or ideology. Also they didn't want to have to take orders from important NPCs. My point is I know that both these things are not necessarily true, and want to get them to see that.

Honest Tiefling
2015-01-22, 02:34 PM
I think you should ask them why they picked Warcraft. I thought the whole factionalism thing was...Uh. The whole point of the setting when you get back to the old games? So I wonder if there are setting elements (certain races, the Scourge, etc.) that they enjoy, but want to see in a new light. How would you feel about filing off the serial numbers off of these aspects in a new setting? Or instead of running amok in this setting, making Noircraft, the setting?

Jay R
2015-01-22, 02:41 PM
Everyone has to accept and be comfortable with the game.

It is not enough for all the players to accept and be comfortable with it.

goto124
2015-01-22, 07:15 PM
I totally understand this and this is what I pitched to my group and they were on board with it. My issue however, was that they seemed to want to move away from the Alliance and the Horde because they considered it to be limiting, shackling them to only a certain type of character or ideology. Also they didn't want to have to take orders from important NPCs. My point is I know that both these things are not necessarily true, and want to get them to see that.

Do the players know that's what you think, but want to play as neutral anyway?

(... oh no. The DM and players want to play different styles.)

I would say let them play as neutral first, then get them to warm up to the idea of being allied. But it runs the risk of 'railroading' and punishing the players needlessly for not being part of a group, due to the preferences of the DM. The 'punishments' may seem completely reasonable to the DM (you), but overbearing and unnecessary to the players.

Since you believe Lawfulness doesn't shackle people that much, it might help to relax on having to be 'lawful'. The superiors might tell them what to do, but don't care how they do it, or what they do as long as they do their work. It might be entirely possible to have a CE or NE in the Alliance or Horde, if she does perform her job. I'm not sure how you feel about this though.


I think you should ask them why they picked Warcraft. I thought the whole factionalism thing was...Uh. The whole point of the setting when you get back to the old games? So I wonder if there are setting elements (certain races, the Scourge, etc.) that they enjoy, but want to see in a new light. How would you feel about filing off the serial numbers off of these aspects in a new setting? Or instead of running amok in this setting, making Noircraft, the setting?

Perhaps because they played the game and liked it? In the game the effects of the storyline aren't really felt. Everything in the story is just fluff and doesn't affect gameplay. MMOs tend to be like that.

Honest Tiefling
2015-01-22, 07:20 PM
Perhaps because they played the game and liked it? In the game the effects of the storyline aren't really felt. Everything in the story is just fluff and doesn't affect gameplay. MMOs tend to be like that.

That is what I was afraid of. They liked some elements, but not the overarching themes, which...Unless the game changed a lot, is very much buried in various games and literature and NPC dialogue I didn't care to read. So they would pick that, not really understanding what the choice meant to the DM.